Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,662

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    And since my post came first, you shall not receive any compensation in the 2020 Twins Daily amateur draft.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think it's an injustice at all. I don't like what the Astros did, but they essentially cheated to get ahead, like many players have before them (steroid users, ball scuffers, etc.). Rose bet on his own team's games. That's a whole different animal. And the rules and precedent on gambling are pretty clear.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But my understanding is that the contracts are pretty specific, and can only be voided if a team can prove the player engaged in specifically prohibited activities -- like the Yankees did with Aaron Boone, when he injured himself in a basketball game after his contract forbade him from playing basketball. There's also something called the "morals clause" and teams have tried to use this against players who get in legal trouble (recall Sidney Ponson punching a judge!). But generally, teams haven't been too successful at that, because it's much more of a judgement call -- at best, they maybe save a couple mil in a settlement with the player to terminate the contract. If there was any case to be made to void the deal of a player who cheated and put up "fraudulent" statistics, I'm sure it would have happened a million times over by now. Recall how Ervin Santana was suspended for PEDs before he even threw a single pitch on his Twins FA contract.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    No. A team can't make a qualifying offer to a player who has received one before, like Odorizzi has this winter.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    First of all, I appreciate your participation in this discussion, but if you don't want to, just don't. You're not forced to. Secondly, I referenced that article for its description of how detailed the medical review process is in modern MLB, and how that process seems much more likely to change the Red Sox valuation of Graterol than "bad faith" / "bad day" explanations. But if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying because Wes Johnson's comments at a Twins Caravan stop aren't specifically mentioned by the reporter in that article, that's evidence that the Red Sox acted in bad faith? If so, I can see why we disagree.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    The trade wasn't announced. It was agreed to, in principle, pending a medical review, like all other trades are before they are announced. And before that agreement, the Red Sox weren't allowed to "check out" Graterol any more than you or I could check him out (meaning, read what is publicly available about him). Some folks are claiming that what was known publicly should have been enough for the Red Sox to make their value determination, but that seems to ignore the complexity of a player's private medical record and how modern MLB teams try to analyze it the best they can. As for Dyson, the Twins did the same as the Red Sox -- after agreeing in principle, we reviewed his medicals before the trade was finalized. But there was nothing about his most recent discomfort in his medical records because he didn't report it to anyone (and his performance leading up the deadline gave no one any reason to be suspicious either).
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, I knew it was his agent. I do wonder if that situation will make it tougher for teams to move him to the pen, if necessary, which might have dampened his trade value a bit.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Buy the book! Available soon in the Twins Pro Shop.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I agree, there is no good answer. Even if prohibiting teams from exchanging medical infodidn't create more "bad faith" negotiating, it would certainly lead to more inquiries about reversing trades, where the league would have to solicit evidence and adjudicate. At least under the current system, most of that responsibility shifts from the league to the team. "Buyer beware." And if there are problems under the current system, they can be more cut-and-dried -- the health of Pomeranz was less important than the simple fact that the Padres falsified records.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't mean to come off as combative, so I apologize for that, but I'm trying to understand your take. This link explains my position far better than I can. Before we agree to disagree, I would love for you to read it and tell me what about it specifically you find less compelling than your explanation: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/02/06/how-baseball-teams-exchange-medical-information-after-agreeing-trade/Nu56T96T3GENiqQQs0amZN/story.html?outputType=amp
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    So basically, go ahead with a lawsuit that you know is frivolous? Plenty of reasons not to do that. Many are probably the same reasons why Selig didn't come down hard on steroid users before the testing procedures were in place.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    The MLBPA would have fought any punishment the commissioner tried to levy against players, and the commissioner would have lost such a fight because the burden of proof would be so high. (A lot higher than counting the number of "bangs" in each player's plate appearances.) The commissioner was able to punish the teams, front offices, and managers because their employment isn't protected by a union and collective bargaining agreement. There's a much lower burden of proof involved.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Jumping back to this -- "poor scouting report." Why couldn't this mean the Red Sox found something in their review of the medicals that didn't match their earlier scouting report? In which case, it's not "buyer's remorse" because they only agreed to buy pending the medical review. And thus, no bad faith if that's their honest stated reason. It seems that's more likely than the idea that Bloom "had a bad day" and didn't realize Graterol was a reliever now, or that he was somehow surprised by bad press upon trading Betts.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    The Theo Epstein example isn't really comparable. He didn't regret trading LeMahieu the very next day. Every GM has a player they regret trading in hindsight. But that tells us nothing about the likelihood that a guy like Bloom (who's new to his job, but a 10+ year veteran of MLB front offices) somehow "had a bad day" immediately upon making a blockbuster trade he was working on for months. I notice you didn't respond to the rest of my post. Were you aware of the volume of details medicals that are exchanged for review only *after* a trade is agreed to, in principle?
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    I wonder if the Twins were considering selling the draft pick anyway, if the original trade had gone through, to clear payroll for Maeda. Although we don't have any bad contracts like Hughes to attach it to at the moment, so it probably works better just to get the money with Maeda from LAD. (Although that also implies that the money comes in as $2.5 mil each season, which doesn't give us quite as much 2020 utility as the $10 mil total might imply.)
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Looking at the Dodgers rotations entering the postseason each year from 2017-2019, it does look like Maeda was no better than 6th best performing SP. Now, that may be due more to Dodgers SP depth than any failing on Maeda's part -- he's certainly better than virtually every 6th or even 5th SP around the league, so I wouldn't dismiss his value on those grounds. But his upside value is likely capped a bit by average range performance and age.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Perhaps. But as a technical matter, the original poster does seem to be correct that they're right around half now, which I think was the other poster's follow-up question. Of course, one can disagree on whether the Twins have any obligation to go higher than that.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Passing a physical is a completely different thing than projecting a player's value. I could pass a physical from a MLB team (probably ), but no one would project any value for me. But by your own description, they didn't "save face" at all. Are they idiots, or incredibly naive, or both? Boras and MLBPA represent Graterol, so they had a vested interest in promoting their client/member, regardless of whether Boston was making a good faith judgment about his future. And most fans are unaware that detailed medical information is only shared between teams *after* a trade agreement has been reached in principal. So I don't think fanbase reactions are a meaningful measurement here about whether the Red Sox were acting in good or bad faith. (Obligatory link to a good article on the subject: “How baseball teams exchange medical information, and what it means for the Mookie Betts trade” https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/02/06/how-baseball-teams-exchange-medical-information-after-agreeing-trade/Nu56T96T3GENiqQQs0amZN/story.html?outputType=amp) Time will tell, but if what you are saying is actually true, then we should see Chaim Bloom fail spectacularly as a naive idiot who is ostracized by other MLB front offices. His immediate pivot to completing a comparable deal with the Dodgers doesn't suggest that's the case, but time will tell.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Oh agreed, I wasn't suggesting Raley was of any particular value to the Twins. Just correcting the cited Fangraphs FV figure.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    True, but I believe the target ~50% quote from ownership specifically referred to MLB player payroll, not draft bonuses, minor league expenses, stadium expenses, etc.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think I disagree, but worth noting that whatever the Dodgers saved on his incentives in 2017 by shifting him to the bullpen for the first time, it was virtually meaningless -- it would not have changed their luxury tax bracket. (I'm not so sure about 2018 and 2019, as they were much closer to the threshold those years, but Maeda's incentives avoided were small enough that they likely have to considered alongside a number of similar financial decisions too). And of course, using him exclusively out of the pen in the past 3 postseasons, when the incentives do not apply, suggests further that their primary motivations for the usage was performance and available options.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    But the Red Sox were trying to come up with a prospect package to replace full-value Graterol. It's quite likely that even at a reduced value after they saw the medicals, the Red Sox still considered Graterol the best prospect the Twins were willing to give up and a likely component of any replacement package. Reports suggest we (correctly) weren't willing to substitute Balazovic, Duran, or anyone better for Graterol. And even taking the "another top 10 prospect" report at face value, depending on the source that could mean prospects like Rooker, Miranda, Celestino, Thorpe, Javier, etc. -- guys who wouldn't necessarily be valuable enough on their own to substitute for full-value Graterol, but good second pieces alongside reduced-value Graterol (and likely considered better by the Red Sox than the second piece we ultimately agreed to send to the Dodgers in Raley). Hence the only way for Boston to try to salvage that iteration of the deal was to request an additional piece with Graterol, no ulterior motive necessary.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed that Maeda has some question marks as a starter. FWIW, ZiPS has him at a 4.25 ERA for 2020. Both ZiPS and Steamer don't really account for changes in playing time, so both are projecting him in a similar swing role that he had with the Dodgers. But beyond ERA, both systems project him in the 1.9-2.4 WAR range, prorated to 156 innings. That's about right for an average-range SP, which is still useful but may be a question mark for the postseason rotation just like he was for the Dodgers.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think so. The Dodgers used him 100% out of the rotation his first season and postseason. They didn't shift him to the pen until after an IL stint and an iffy start to the 2017 season; and subsequent shifts to the pen were generally when the Dodgers had 5+ better SP options and were preparing for the postseason. The Dodgers actually offered Maeda the option to re-structure his contract this winter, so he could meet some of those incentives without starting, but Maeda declined.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    According to this article, Fangraphs currently has Raley at 35+ too, the same as Camargo: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-big-mookie-betts-deal-is-finally-happening-but-the-dodgers-angels-trade-isnt/ They apparently had Raley at 40 FV on their 2019 and 2019 updated lists as well. 2020 will be Camargo's first appearance on an org list.
×
×
  • Create New...